In the case of 'costs' involved in wine production I agree; however as a business the vineyard owners will require an economic return on the written down value of his property as well as a full overhead recovery, all subject to a healthy profit. As these prime vineyards virtually never appear on the property for sale lists, their underlying valuation is a matter of conjecture.
Otherwise I agree with that which you say, other than that the opinion of wine buffs is not good guidance for me - their opinions have cost me hard cash over the years and left me disappointed on far too many occasions. Likewise speakers etc. which have found favour - by any method of evaluation - have seldom been for me, what they have been cracked-up to be.
One's own taste-buds and ears along with one's own choice of food and music - these will be the final decider.
Name one product, for which retail level is not part influenced by brand recognition & value.
(Back in my sleaze days, I sold and/or 'arranged' whatever a prick wanted at 3am. Menu list price of a bottle of scotch or bubbles is/was several times regular wholesale. Like H... I'd hand out freebees to my boss, he didn't want to know about the Cherry & Coke works, as it's legal twilight zone, so all hospatility extra's were kept out of the books.
Boiled down to having a private stash suitcase, car trunk storage, or swapping a bottle from the cellar within 24hrs, nothing on paper.
Amusing trivia : after midnight, folks always pick the most expensive consumer grade )
(Back in my sleaze days, I sold and/or 'arranged' whatever a prick wanted at 3am. Menu list price of a bottle of scotch or bubbles is/was several times regular wholesale. Like H... I'd hand out freebees to my boss, he didn't want to know about the Cherry & Coke works, as it's legal twilight zone, so all hospatility extra's were kept out of the books.
Boiled down to having a private stash suitcase, car trunk storage, or swapping a bottle from the cellar within 24hrs, nothing on paper.
Amusing trivia : after midnight, folks always pick the most expensive consumer grade )
Last edited:
A statement that is not really backed up by results of serious controlled listening tests. (Serious means that it could be shown that the tests were objective, valid and reliable)
One has to thrown away any contrary result to establish such an assertion.
If "we" understand enough about the connection between signal processing and perception then an audio device is simply a black box and based on the known thresholds of hearing "we" could decide if an perceptible difference exists between two black boxes under test.
Obviously it is not as simple as that.
It starts with the thresholds of hearing- usually these describe the average of a small sample and "we" don´t really know what the underlying distribution in the population really looks like in detail. (The assumption that it would probably be a normal distribution is justified)
If "we" try to infere from these small samples to the population (which is questionable due to the small samples in most cases) we have to consider a large spread which means that quite probably a small percentage of humans exists who do hear much more sensitive than the average. Lower bound to this is the physiological apparatus.
And otoh there are still a lot of mechanisms in our hearing sense unknown up to now.
That is why "we" still have to rely on controlled listening tests.
jakob, we can design boxes of gain that are SO FAR beyond the ability to hear and even further beyond the dynamic range and noise of even the most amazing audiophile recordings (normally 20-30dB at best) its ridiculous. 'we' may not know the bounds of every single different person specifically, but its pretty safe to say its not 140dB
your words would suggest that as long as there is a single person randomly able to pick the winner, this renders the entire test invalid? surely if 'he' has such magical powers of hearing and discernment that he can continue to pick the difference, 'he' should be the person to design more miraculous equipment, because surely the designers will have still done their job to cater for all but freaks of nature/aliens and mutoid bat-people?
hearing is pretty well covered, perception is still a bit grey; but you would be best to not confuse the 2, as so many do, it leads down the rabbit-hole
your words would suggest that as long as there is a single person randomly able to pick the winner, this renders the entire test invalid? surely if 'he' has such magical powers of hearing and discernment that he can continue to pick the difference, 'he' should be the person to design more miraculous equipment, because surely the designers will have still done their job to cater for all but freaks of nature/aliens and mutoid bat-people?
hearing is pretty well covered, perception is still a bit grey; but you would be best to not confuse the 2, as so many do, it leads down the rabbit-hole
No, if a single person can correctly identify a change (i.e., distinguish between two or more alternatives) in a statistically significant way, using a well-controlled test, then the change in question is considered audible. Just because *I* can't hear Phenomenon X doesn't mean that no-one can hear it. Just because most people can't hear Phenomenon Y doesn't mean that no-one can hear it. However, once a phenomenon is tested over and over with continuing null results in controlled tests, the presumption is that it is inaudible- at least until someone comes along and shows, in a well-controlled and statistically valid test that they (or one of their subjects) can detect it.
Yeah, the same phenomenon that gives rise to the squares illusion.
Here's another old favorite of mine.
Assuming straight lines, A is the opposite end of B or C?
Attachments
biological sensors obey physics - are limited by genetics, viable physiology
and developed under evolutionary cost/benefit pressure
they do not have "infinite tail" distributions in sensitivity, spectral range, are at best one sided with hard limits from physics of the sensing organs and signal properties
and developed under evolutionary cost/benefit pressure
they do not have "infinite tail" distributions in sensitivity, spectral range, are at best one sided with hard limits from physics of the sensing organs and signal properties
Assuming straight line a is between band c and b thus is neither. Nice try also very entertaining and far more relevant than 63.7 % of the posts.
Close one eye, then close the other instead. (or step back a few yards)
(with stereoscopes, one can train perspective. some never reach 3D ability, btw )
Last edited:
^^ what he said. at some point the more reasonable course would be to double check the test regime, rather than conclude someone can hear a difference. an audible gnat fart in a jet engine is simply not a viable explanation, we simply arent built for it.
if that freak was ever found to exist, I would suggest he is on his own and should develop his own technology if unsatisfied. it doesnt make sense to develop technology with him in mind.
That's why I emphasized "well-controlled." Some of the things you need to do to accomplish that are a pain for the experimenter (like accurate, stable level and frequency response matching), so the tendency among people inexperienced with sensory experiment design is to cut corners, thinking that the details aren't important.
qusp,
I agree that we generally design for the mean or median population and not for the outlier in the crowd. That just doesn't make sense in most products that are consumer oriented. On the other hand we have been told that a black box can be built that will sound just like the next black box and that has been shown time and again not to be very true.
While reading the Bob Cordell thread you see that tiny changes in a circuit do make a measurable difference in the measured response and function of the many topologies. So what is it, is there a simple amplifier circuit that should satisfy everyone bar a few or is it really still not so clear cut. We do seem to be able to distinguish between different implementations, not saying one is superior to another, just that we still hear that they don't sound exactly the same.
I agree that we generally design for the mean or median population and not for the outlier in the crowd. That just doesn't make sense in most products that are consumer oriented. On the other hand we have been told that a black box can be built that will sound just like the next black box and that has been shown time and again not to be very true.
While reading the Bob Cordell thread you see that tiny changes in a circuit do make a measurable difference in the measured response and function of the many topologies. So what is it, is there a simple amplifier circuit that should satisfy everyone bar a few or is it really still not so clear cut. We do seem to be able to distinguish between different implementations, not saying one is superior to another, just that we still hear that they don't sound exactly the same.
of course, just changing the trace width/placement or PCB substrate thickness and no component or topological changes at all, will make a measurable difference with the right tools in some circuits, but how does that relate to anything audible? Bob is a great designer, but IMO his amps were transparent long ago and further refinements seem to be unashamedly academic, not driven by a lack of transparency. thats not to say everyone gets it right, but I dont think anyone can really claim (electronic) mystery anymore.
I think we passed the outlier some time ago too, we are just in a position of being unwilling to categorically rule out the unknown. there are, as jcx mentioned, hard limits of physiology and physics still to consider that are not theoretical limits.
Last edited:
For someone who claims extraordinary acuity, I don't know anyone who tops James Boyk. But he has made some nice recordings.
The Boyk and Sussman paper on IM distortion is fun. I am too lazy to find the reference right now. I was impressed that (a) Boyk partnered with the top-notch Sussman, and (b) actually had, at one point, something good to say about bipolar transistors. Remember, this was the man who had T shirts made that said "Digital finishes what the transistor began".
The Boyk and Sussman paper on IM distortion is fun. I am too lazy to find the reference right now. I was impressed that (a) Boyk partnered with the top-notch Sussman, and (b) actually had, at one point, something good to say about bipolar transistors. Remember, this was the man who had T shirts made that said "Digital finishes what the transistor began".
The premise for that conclusion would be that we measure the "box" under the _exact_ conditions that we would choose to listen to it. Is that usually assured?
My words may have inattentionally suggested it.
As SY pointed out, an controlled experiment includes to calculate the probability to "pick" something (i.e. to get a result) by chance.
Obviously to define an acceptable error level is a deliberate decision up to a certain degree but there exist some common significance levels in sensory experiments. (the famous SL=0.05, 0.01 and 0.001 thresholds)
I had my share with controlled listening tests during the past ~30 years and that included conducting tests with other listeners as well.
"Pretty well covered" is fine, but that means in reality there is a lot still left out. (See for some hints JJ´s power point presentations at the AES site, or look at the studies in neurobiology)
@ jcx,
Exactly, which i tried to incorporate with
"Lower bound to this is the physiological apparatus."
Last edited:
It is almost never fulfilled. More than that, the only relevant measurement is on the complete audio chain as used for listening. Individual component measurements do not tell much, especially regarding noise/interference level and low level signals in the complete system.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.